Subject: (urth) Gnostic Wolfe

From: DSG20001 <dsg20001 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:57:28 +0000

In a message dated 10/10/2002 9:43:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
straight at email.unc.edu writes:

If Whorl=Garden and Pas=God, then Outsider=???

The view that religion and politics aren't subjects for polite conversation 
doesn't appear to be a view Gene Wolfe fans can casually adopt. (Which may 
account for a great deal of his appeal.)

I don't know nearly enough about the various Gnostic doctrines, but the more 
I do learn about them, the more affinities I notice between certain of those 
doctrines and the BotLS. 

I suppose readers must take Wolfe at his word when he confesses that he's an 
orthodox Catholic--while keeping in mind that at least some elements of his 
theology are decidedly nonorthodox. For example, his belief in the (prior?) 
existence of pagan gods and goddesses. 

I'll leave to the theologians on this remarkable list the question of whether 
Wolfe's additions lean toward the heretical or merely the eccentric. But in 
appraising his works, particularly the BotLS, it might be useful to pursue in 
a little more depth what appear--at first blush, anyway--to be striking 
similarities between Wolfe and Gnostic thought. 

The online Gnostic Library (http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library.html) 
includes an introductory page written by a Gnostic Bishop. The above 
speculation, "Whorl=Garden and Pas=God, then the Outsider=???" is addressed 
there in a remarkable fashion: Whorl=Garden and Pas=the God of all Creation, 
the God of the material world, the God outlined in the Old Testament, then 
the Outsider=the Unknown God who is the true focus of Gnostic revelation.

>From the introduction:

"The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the 
creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is 
God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with 
dismay even by non-believers."

A fairly lengthy excerpt from the intro page is particularly tantalizing in 
light of Patera Silk's "enlightenment" by the Outsider--and in light of 
Wolfe's own attitude toward "true myths" in his work: 

"GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence 
arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus 
rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such 
experience results in Gnostic recognitions. 

"It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious 
experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of 
theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and 
expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most 
Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term 'myth' should not here 
be taken to mean 'stories that are not true,' but rather, that the truths 
embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology 
or the statements of philosophy...The True God of transcendence is unknown in 
this world, in fact He is often called the Unknown Father. It is thus obvious 
that revelation from on High is needed to bring about salvation. 

"The indwelling spark must be awakened from its terrestrial slumber by the 
saving knowledge that comes 'from without'...in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, 
Jesus answered that human beings must come by Gnosis to know the ineffable, 
divine reality from whence they have originated, and whither they will 
return. This transcendental knowledge must come to them while they are still 
embodied on earth." 

As to the myriad "intermediate deific beings" that inhabit Wolfe's universe: 

"The basic Gnostic myth has many variations, but all of these refer to Aeons, 
intermediate deific beings who exist between the ultimate, True God and 
ourselves. They, together with the True God, comprise the realm of Fullness 
(Pleroma) wherein the potency of divinity operates fully."

I'll be puzzling over these affinities for some time and would certainly 
appreciate "enlightenment" from those more familiar with Gnosticism than 
myself.

Dan

-- 
<HTML>In a message dated 10/10/2002 9:43:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, straight at email.unc.edu writes:

If Whorl=Garden and Pas=God, then Outsider=???

The view that religion and politics aren't subjects for polite conversation doesn't appear to be a view Gene Wolfe fans can casually adopt. (Which may account for a great deal of his appeal.)

I don't know nearly enough about the various Gnostic doctrines, but the more I do learn about them, the more affinities I notice between certain of those doctrines and the BotLS. 

I suppose readers must take Wolfe at his word when he confesses that he's an orthodox Catholic--while keeping in mind that at least some elements of his theology are decidedly nonorthodox. For example, his belief in the (prior?) existence of pagan gods and goddesses. 

I'll leave to the theologians on this remarkable list the question of whether Wolfe's additions lean toward the heretical or merely the eccentric. But in appraising his works, particularly the BotLS, it might be useful to pursue in a little more depth what appear--at first blush, anyway--to be striking similarities between Wolfe and Gnostic thought. 

The online Gnostic Library (http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library.html) includes an introductory page written by a Gnostic Bishop. The above speculation, "Whorl=Garden and Pas=God, then the Outsider=???" is addressed there in a remarkable fashion: Whorl=Garden and Pas=the God of all Creation, the God of the material world, the God outlined in the Old Testament, then the Outsider=the Unknown God who is the true focus of Gnostic revelation.

>From the introduction:

"The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers."

A fairly lengthy excerpt from the intro page is particularly tantalizing in light of Patera Silk's "enlightenment" by the Outsider--and in light of Wolfe's own attitude toward "true myths" in his work: 

"GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. 

"It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term 'myth' should not here be taken to mean 'stories that are not true,' but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy...The True God of transcendence is unknown in this world, in fact He is often called the Unknown Father. It is thus obvious that revelation from on High is needed to bring about salvation. 

"The indwelling spark must be awakened from its terrestrial slumber by the saving knowledge that comes 'from without'...in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus answered that human beings must come by Gnosis to know the ineffable, divine reality from whence they have originated, and whither they will return. This transcendental knowledge must come to them while they are still embodied on earth." 

As to the myriad "intermediate deific beings" that inhabit Wolfe's universe: 

"The basic Gnostic myth has many variations, but all of these refer to Aeons, intermediate deific beings who exist between the ultimate, True God and ourselves. They, together with the True God, comprise the realm of Fullness (Pleroma) wherein the potency of divinity operates fully."

I'll be puzzling over these affinities for some time and would certainly appreciate "enlightenment" from those more familiar with Gnosticism than myself.

Dan</HTML>

---

From: Josh Geller <dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:46:00 +0000

> If Whorl=Garden and Pas=God,

Pas == Demiourgos

>                               then Outsider=???

Outsider == God

> existence of pagan gods and goddesses.

That's in the Bible.

'Prior', that's a loaded term. We're working with two entirely different
ways of looking at Time.

> Wolfe's additions lean toward the heretical or merely the eccentric.

Wolfe's orthodox.

He communicates, you know?

He's learned. He knows many of the more poorly documented features
of the religion and the picture of the World associated with it.

>                                                            But in
> appraising his works, particularly the BotLS, it might be useful to
> pursue in a little more depth what appear--at first blush, anyway--to be
> striking similarities between Wolfe and Gnostic thought.

Wolfe's gnostic only in the sense that Catholic or Orthodox Christianity
is a subset of gnosticism.

But in fact the name and concept of gnosticism was invented by the
Orthodox ("correct-believing") to seperate themselves from the heterodox
("different-believing").

Before what became the Orthodox church got into bed with the Roman state,
there were just different kinds of Christians and such arguing amongst
each other.

After the 330's, the Orthodox owned the cops, and enthusiastically
employed them suppressing everyone who 'believed different'.

> The online Gnostic Library (http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library.html)

www.enemies.com is my favorite.

.

--

---

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 01:24:56 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Geller" <dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net>

> www.enemies.com is my favorite.

No, the graphics are fun there, but the information is flip and sophomoric;
for instance, there seems to be no awareness of the central Sophia myth. The
Gnostic Library is the place to browse. Or an elementary printed text is
Hans Jonas's "The Gnostic Religion: the Message of the Alien God and the
Beginnings of Christianity."

-alga

--

---

From: Josh Geller <dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 03:04:56 +0000

>> www.enemies.com is my favorite.
                      ^^

> Beginnings of Christianity."

So it's not your favorite.

So nu?

I lied, actually, it's not really my favorite.

.

--

---

From: Kevin J. Maroney <kjm at panix.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:54:39 +0000

<delurk>

Alga Alice just encouraged me to post this observation I made to her off-list:

It's pretty clear to me that Wolfe didn't have the Short Sun in mind when 
he started Long Sun, but that he did by the time he finished Long Sun. Pas 
as demiurge is such a clear image that it's hard to believe that he 
*didn't* intend for the work to function, in part at least, as an attack on 
Gnosticism; he may have teased the ideas out further as he composed the 
later novels.

My biggest metaquestion about Return to the Whorl was "why is there so much 
narrative effort devoted to burying Scylla's shade?"; if she somehow 
represents Sophia, then it makes more sense. But it's hard to see how she 
would be Sophia. The adult Scylla is about as vile a character as Wolfe has 
limned, and the child is pretty passive.

Here's a connection I've never teased out before: Silk is (in part) St. 
Francis of Assisi, who lived from 1181 to 1226, in Umbria; his mother is 
believed to have been Provencal. The Albigensians flourished in Provence in 
the 12th and 13th centuries; the Albigensians were quasi-Gnostic. The 
Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't say anything about Francis opposing the 
Albigensians, but the temporal overlap is striking.

</delurk>
--
Wombat, a. k. a. Kevin J. Maroney kjm at panix.com
New York Review of Science Fiction: <http://www.nyrsf.com>

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:38:31 +0000

> Here's a connection I've never teased out before: Silk is (in 
> part) St. Francis of Assisi, who lived from 1181 to 1226, in
> Umbria; 

Yes ... his preaching to animals (and birds in particular)
should make that clear.

He's also part Father Brown, I think.

> The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't say anything about Francis
> opposing the Albigensians, but the temporal overlap is striking.

...yes, particularly given the other observations in your
post. Nicely done.

Is the Chapter, then, inherently Gnostic? Interestingly, it 
does not seem to be -- though "enlightenment" has some aspects
of _gnosis_, it partakes quite as much of the prophetic trance,
and the "prayer of union" spoken of by St. Teresa of Avila;
and there is nothing about the teachings or acts of the Chapter
that makes me think "Gnosticism." Rather, it is a reasonably
orthodox sort of middle-Eastern polytheism -- the sort which 
preceded and developed into monothesitic Judaism -- which,
however, happens to exist in a pocket universe whose nature is, 
in fact, Gnostic; which in turn exists in a larger universe 
whose nature is what one might expect from the teachings of
orthodox Catholicism...

I don't know why people think Wolfe is complicated. 8*)

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:47:16 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
> preceded and developed into monothesitic Judaism

Rather Hellenic or Nordic than Middle Eastern, I think.

The enfolding of the impulse to address the divine (which Silk feels and
expresses in his *false* religion) by the real divinity of the Outsider
mirrors the "baptising" of european native pantheism by invading
monotheistic Christianity

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:00:02 +0000

I wrote:
> > that makes me think "Gnosticism." Rather, it is a 
> > reasonably orthodox sort of middle-Eastern
> > polytheism -- the sort which preceded and developed
> > into monothesitic Judaism

And hartshorn responded:

> The enfolding of the impulse to address the divine (which 
> Silk feels and expresses in his *false* religion) by the real 
> divinity of the Outsider mirrors the "baptising" of european 
> native pantheism by invading monotheistic Christianity

I see your point, and even agree with it -- there is a 
certain feel to the Whorldly pantheon that does remind one 
of (especially) the Greek gods; and naturally so, since 
they are to some not-insignificant extent patterned after 
them. 

But I was not speaking of the pantheon (which is, more or
less, universal to the Whorl) but of the Chapter; and the 
forms and rituals of the Chapter (and especially that of 
the sacrificial rite) very much resemble those of the 
Middle East.

--

---

From: Kevin J. Maroney <kjm at panix.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:14:05 +0000

>the sacrificial rite) very much resemble those of the

What do you feel is specifically Middle Eastern about them rather than 
Hellenic?

-- 
Wombat, aka Kevin J. Maroney | kjm at panix.com

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:22:00 +0000

> >But I was not speaking of the pantheon (which is, more or less, 
> >universal to the Whorl) but of the Chapter; and the forms 
> >and rituals of the Chapter (and especially that of the sacrificial
> >rite) very much resemble those of the Middle East.
> 
> What do you feel is specifically Middle Eastern about them 
> rather than Hellenic?

The description of the sacrificial rite is very remniscent of
what is known of the rites of sacrifice in the temple at 
Jerusalem, including the business about splashing the blood
on the altar, the regulations about what gets burned and what 
gets eaten ... I'm admittedly making the assumption that the
Jerusalem sacrifice was typical of the Middle East; much of 
Hebrew religion was, though repurposed for monotheism.

If these things are typical of Greek sacrifice, then I'm simply
wrong.

--

---

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:25:11 +0000

Not answering anyone completely because it's just too hard to do multiple
answers on the Digest now (hi, Ranjit!) but Wombat asked why Middle Eastern
mythology rather than Hellenic or Norse? An easy answer would be that
neither ever had a goddess as fierce and treacherous as Inanna/Ishtar could
be, and that we meet in the series. (Though indeed the Celts had some.) But,
aha, that is a canard. The mythology, as Typhon/Pas planned it, is indeed
Hellenic. In Greek mythology nearly all monsters are female, though there's
an occasional male with eye problems, like the Cyclops or Argus--or Typhon
himself, whose problems were explosive rather than ocular. I think Wolfe
probably read Gilgamesh, if not other Middle Eastern myths, and got some
input into vengeful female deities. He certainly used the Gnostic Demiurge,
who was Middle Eastern, in another tradition. And the shorter works point to
some interest in Native American myth. But the Plan of Pas wrt the Family is
based strongly on Greek myth, particularly on Hesiod's account of who begat
whom: the children of Echidna and Typhon, with a borrowing or two from here
and there. There's a nasty sense of humor at work in the Plan of Pas as his
uploaded offspring act out their assumed roles, as if in a charade. Wolfe is
in no way sympatheic to Pas as Demiuurge.

So: Sophia. Wombat and I puzzled over the extended and rather out-of-whack
fictionally, baby Scylla sequence in the last SS novel, wondering if this
could be a last-ditch attempt to drag a Sophia figure in (sorry, Wombat, I
am paraphrasing, and possibly mis-phrasing). But, as he says, it seems
rather strained, whether or not this is true. And perhaps that is what is
meant by an anti-Gnostic view--because in my own view Sophia is an
extraordinarily sympathetic, if terribly mistaken, figure. And that is not
what Wolfe has given us, in either aspect of his Scylla.

Finally, interesting that this St. Francis's job is the slaughter of
animals.

-alga

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:47:40 +0000

Perhaps I'm being dense, and it's been several years since I last read
TBOTLS; but I don't see any particular connection between the Long Sun books
and Gnosticism, either positive and negative.  I don't see anything that Pas
has in common with the Demiurge that he doesn't have in common with pagan
"high gods" such as Zeus, who are the obvious models.  Unlike the Demiurge,
Pas didn't really create anything.  And Typhon himself only "created" the
Whorl in the sense that Rockefeller created Standard Oil; it may have been
an act of sinful pride, but it had no cosmic significance that I'm aware of.
Still less do I see how the Long Sun books are a criticism of Gnosticism
(unless, as mantis said, one assumes that Gnostics worshipped the Demiurge,
which afaik they never did).  But, as I say, perhaps I'm just missing
something.

--Adam

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:12:29 +0000

Adam Stephanides said:
Perhaps I'm being dense, and it's been several years since I last read
TBOTLS; but I don't see any particular connection between the Long Sun books
and Gnosticism, either positive and negative...But, as I say, perhaps I'm
just missing
something.

Well, like the "New Age", Gnoticism adopted so many elements from so many
places and ideas that it's difficult to say in anything theological without
it suggesting Gnostic influence. Still, there is this quote from the
Catholic Encyclopedia which seems to be a source to which Wolfe frequently
returns:

"Although the origins of Gnosticism are still largely enveloped in
obscurity, so much light has been shed on the problem by the combined
labours of many scholars that it is possible to give the following tentative
solution: Although Gnosticism may at first sight appear a mere thoughtless
syncretism of well nigh all religious systems in antiquity, it has in
reality one deep root-principle, which assimilated in every soil what is
needed for its life and growth; this principle is philosophical and
religious pessimism. The Gnostics, it is true, borrowed their terminology
almost entirely from existing religions, but they only used it to illustrate
their great idea of the essential evil of this present existence and the
duty to escape it by the help of magic spells and a superhuman Saviour.
Whatever they borrowed, this pessimism they did not borrow -- not from Greek
thought, which was a joyous acknowledgment of and homage to the beautiful
and noble in this world, with a studied disregard of the element of sorrow;
not from Egyptian thought, which did not allow its elaborate speculations on
retribution and judgment in the netherworld to cast a gloom on this present
existence, but considered the universe created or evolved under the
presiding wisdom of Thoth; not from Iranian thought, which held to the
absolute supremacy of Ahura Mazda and only allowed Ahriman a subordinate
share in the creation, or rather counter-creation, of the world; not from
Indian Brahminic thought, which was Pantheism pure and simple, or God
dwelling in, nay identified with, the universe, rather than the Universe
existing as the contradictory of God; not, lastly, from Semitic thought, for
Semitic religions were strangely reticent as to the fate of the soul after
death, and saw all practical wisdom in the worship of Baal, or Marduk, or
Assur, or Hadad, that they might live long on this earth. This utter
pessimism, bemoaning the existence of the whole universe as a corruption and
a calamity, with a feverish craving to be freed from the body of this death
and a mad hope that, if we only knew, we could by some mystic words undo the
cursed spell of this existence -- this is the foundation of all Gnostic
thought. It has the same parent-soil as Buddhism; but Buddhism is ethical,
it endeavours to obtain its end by the extinction of all desire; Gnosticism
is pseudo-intellectual, and trusts exclusively to magical knowledge.
Moreover, Gnosticism, placed in other historical surroundings, developed
from the first on other lines than Buddhism."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

Well consider Silk's speech at on the airship after he attempted to kill
himself. Doesn't it suggest a Gnostic attitude? Doesn't Silk reject this
outlook in the end?

-- Crush

--

---

From: tom <tom at bitterman.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:40:23 +0000

Adam Stephanides wrote:
> I don't see any particular connection between the Long Sun books
> and Gnosticism, either positive and negative.

Silk holds the "primary" Gnostic belief - that the god(s) of this
world/Whorl are false, and that the true God exists outside in
some sense.

> I don't see anything that Pas has in common with the Demiurge
> that he doesn't have in common with pagan "high gods" such as
> Zeus, who are the obvious models.

Zeus, in the standard Greek model, was exactly who he claimed to
be - father of the gods and head honcho.  The Demiurge is exactly
_not_ what he claims to be - the one God.  Pas/Typhon is in that
boat.  He's set himself up as a god, but really isn't.

> Still less do I see how the Long Sun books are a criticism

I think he's sort of re-purposing Gnosticism.

The danger Gnosticism poses to Christianity (and Catholicism
in particular) is that it pulls the same trick on Christianity
that Christianity pulled on the pagans.  To be short, the
Christian God was set up as the God of the pagan Gods; in the
same manner the Gnostic God was set up as the superior of the
Christian God.  This is the "old" sense of Gnosticism, and
is obviously unacceptable to Wolfe.

In the Long Sun Whorl, however, being Gnostic is the only
correct way to be.  As opposed to the "real" world, the Whorl
really is run by a mad god, and the only escape is through belief
in a god "outside".

In the book, then, Wolfe draws a parallel between the current
situation in the "real" world and the Whorl - trapped in a
decaying hulk, people worship exactly what got them into this mess
in the first place: technology.  Wolfe wants the reader to
recognize how tech is made a god, and to become a (new, improved)
Gnostic by finding the real God outside of the world.  This
is the "new" sense of being a Gnostic.

In this new sense (not the bad old sense) being a Gnostic is ok.
Wolfe has simultaneously criticized Gnosticism (after all, when
Silk meets the Creator, that's it - he's found the Source) while
reinvigorating it (by using it as a model for how we should relate
to the modern world).

James Wynn quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia:
>"Gnosticism ... has in reality one deep root-principle, which
> assimilated in every soil what is needed for its life and
> growth; this principle is philosophical and religious pessimism...
> This utter pessimism, bemoaning the existence of the whole universe
> as a corruption and a calamity, with a feverish craving to be
> freed from the body of this death and a mad hope that, if we only
> knew, we could by some mystic words undo the cursed spell of this
> existence -- this is the foundation of all Gnostic thought."

Gnostics (as far as we know) weren't all that pessimistic, really.
Compared to doctrines like Sheol and predestination, Gnostics
were positively euphoric.

It's best to read this entire entry as an outdated (almost 100
year old) polemic by an ancient enemy of the Gnostics, rather
than a serious analysis.

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:03:27 +0000

on 10/25/02 12:40 PM, tom at tom at bitterman.net wrote:

> world/Whorl are false,

But this is not specific to Gnosticism, but true for any monotheist in a
polytheistic world--like Silk.

> and that the true God exists outside in
> some sense.

And the Outsider isn't really "outside"; that's just the role assigned him
in Pas's mythology.  In reality he's just as much inside as outside; the
Whorl is no less a part of his creation than anything else is.

> be - father of the gods and head honcho.

But not in Wolfe's reported beliefs (or in the beliefs of the early
Christians), in which the pagan gods existed, but were not really gods.
Just like Pas.

> really is run by a mad god, and the only escape is through belief

How does this square with the fact that Pas wants "his" people to leave the
Whorl?

on 10/25/02 11:12 AM, James Wynn at crushtv at HotPOP.com wrote (quoting the
Catholic encyclopedia):

> Although Gnosticism may at first sight appear a mere thoughtless
> religious pessimism.
[snip]
> This utter
> thought.
[snip]
> himself. Doesn't it suggest a Gnostic attitude? Doesn't Silk reject this

Pessimism isn't peculiar to Gnosticism; and in several of Wolfe's other
books, in which nobody has (yet) suggested Gnostic influence afaik, the
protagonists are at times in similar states of despair.  And Silk seems to
have been reacting to the evil that "lurks in the hearts of men" rather than
any cosmic evil: e. g. "instead of focusing on the evil in myself, as I
should have, I gave my attention to the evil in others." (345, EXODUS hc)

Incidentally, unless I'm overlooking something, Silk did not attempt to kill
himself on the airship; he was contemplating suicide when Horn appeared and
distracted him. 

--Adam

--

---

From: Josh Geller <dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:20:05 +0000

> Christians), in which the pagan gods existed, but were not really gods.

They are really gods, but they are not really God.

> Just like Pas.

A deified ruler.

Like many (most?) historical gods.

.

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:36:04 +0000

Adam and Tom exchanging ...

> >> I don't see any particular connection between the Long Sun 
> >> books and Gnosticism, either positive and negative.
> > 
> But this is not specific to Gnosticism, but true for any 
> monotheist in a polytheistic world--like Silk.

For clarity:

The "Gnostic model" of the Long Sun books is this:

In Wolfe's "major" works, he presents settings in an orthodox
Catholic universe in which "other" religious traditions can be
literalized.

tBotNS portrays a world in which Kabbala is literally true; 
the "Soldier" books portray a world in which paganism -- sc.
Greek myth -- is literally true. And in the Long Sun books,
he is portraying a world, set against a larger, orthodox
Catholic universe, in which Gnosticism (or at least one form
of it) is literally true.

To summarize how a form of Gnosticism is literalized in the
Long Sun books:

All things (the whole larger universe in which the "Sun" 
books are, overall, set) emanate from the one True God 
(Silk's Outsider). From those "emanations," a Demiurge 
(Pas), with the help of other "Archons" (Pas' family and 
the lesser gods) have made a false, material world (the 
Whorl). In such a world, the only way in which humans and 
the True God can approach each other is by an act of Gnosis 
(Silk's enlightenment), for which a human may and must 
prepare himself (Silk's discipline and religious training), 
but which is still ultimately an act of the True God.

Zat make sense?

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:46:30 +0000

> tBotNS portrays a world in which Kabbala is literally true;

I don't know much about Kabbalah (just what I've read in Gerschom Scholem),
and don't recall much of the discussions on this list of the topic; but
based on what little I do know, I doubt that this is the case, despite Wolfe
borrowing of Kabbalistic terminology.
 
> Greek myth -- is literally true.

They reflect Wolfe's own beliefs that the pagan "gods" really existed; this
is different from his writing as if a world-view he believes false were
true.

> And in the Long Sun books,
> (Silk's Outsider).

We aren't told whether the Outsider created the universe actively a la
Genesis, or whether it "emanated" from him Gnostic-style.

> From those "emanations," a Demiurge
> Whorl).

Except that, as I said before, Pas created nothing; Typhon did.  And the
relationship between Pas and the other gods is much more like that of a
polytheistic high god to other gods, than that of the Demiurge to the
Archons, afaik.  And while the Whorl is artificial, it isn't "false" in the
sense that the material universe is false in Gnosticism, just artificial.
While the story its inhabitants are told about its creation is false, the
Whorl itself is no less directly part of the Outsider's creation than
anything else.

> In such a world, the only way in which humans and
> (Silk's enlightenment),

But afaik, "gnosis" in ancient Gnosticism (which, given Wolfe's general
interest in the ancient world, is more likely to be what he had in mind than
any of the modern varieties, if indeed he had any sort of Gnosticism in
mind) refers not to a sudden, mystical enlightenment, but to the learning of
a body of esoteric doctrine.

> for which a human may and must

> Zat make sense?

I grant that there are parallels between Gnosticism and the universe of
TBOTLS.  But most of them apply as well or better to monotheism vs.
polytheism, as I've said before.  The only thing which suggests Gnosticism
specifically is the "artificial world" nature of the Whorl, and even that is
not a "literal" transposition of Gnosticism.  Absent any explicit indication
that Wolfe had Gnosticism in mind, I remain unconvinced.

--Adam

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:24:42 +0000

Adam said

Crush interjects
Well, we do know that in the Long Sun, the Outsider is the acknowledged
creator of humans (from mud) in the Chrasmological Writings (I think this is
in LS 2). This suggests that Typhon may not be a true Demiurge
Gnostic-style, but a pretender to Demi-urge status - some one who has
kidnapped the Outsider's creations into his Gnostic creation.
-- Crush

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 15:27:08 +0000

I've been out of the country for this discussion, and have skimmed the 
posts. A few comments:
         1. Gnosticism is just "philosophy + myth." Philosophy, whether 
Greek or Buddhist, held that the "world" is corrupt in some essential way, 
and that the wise man "escapes" from the world through contemplation, 
contemplating his way out of the "cave." Gnosticism popularized this 
notion, adding myths, and various ritual and esoteric ways of escape 
(though esotericism is all over Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, if you 
read them aright). The prophets of Israel preached against all escape, and 
called the people to involve themselves with the plight of the poor, the 
oppressed, etc.; and Jesus and the (best) of the Church follows this. 
Christianity, with its sacraments of water, oil, bread, and wine, and with 
its central doctrine of physical resurrection, is very "this-worldly," 
preaching redemption and activistic good works, not escape into contemplation.
         2. Judeo-Christianity teaches creation of the world "out of 
nothing" by a Creator. Gnosticism teaches that the present world is an 
emanation out of the "substance" of the "prime mover" (plug in other titles 
as well). Somewhere down the line, the Demiurge formed the present world 
out of  part of what had emanated from the Prime Mover. The Demiurge might 
be "evil" and seeking to corrupt the emanation, or he might just be doing 
his "demurge thing" by forming and shaping it. Either way, the world is 
either evil and to be escaped, or else grossly inferior and to be transcended.
         3. Typhon is, IMO, much like the Demiurge, in that he forms his 
Whorl out of preexisting matter. Pas rules this Whorl, so he is not a 
"demiurge" but merely a "god." But the Outsider, is just that: outside of 
it all. He is the Creator, not a Prime Mover, and the cosmos is not made 
out of his substance. He is outside of it, not the highest part of it. And, 
being outside of it all, He can also by His Spirit, be intimately "inside" 
of it, but as a personal "friend," not as some kind of "essential 
substance." The Outsider can stand behind Silk/Horn and as a Friend 
encourage him to worship through bread and wine. Silk first comes to know 
the Outsider as "outside the Whorl" and above Pas, and then as "outside" 
the whole cosmos as Creator thereof.
         4. The Outsider as a minor god in Typhon's pantheon is a play on 
the "Unknown God" of Acts chapter 17. He can be understood within the 
pantheon as "every other god we don't know about," but in reality He is the 
leftover awareness of the Creator. Hence, for Wolfe, as for orthodox 
Christianity, pagan religions are a mixture of awareness of the truth of an 
Outside Creator mingled and corrupted by a "scale of being" or "gnostic" or 
"emanation-hierarchical" view of reality. Thus, Chapter religion has some 
of both in it. But what is happening is not a "baptizing" of prior 
paganism, but an extrication from it. It is a mistake to read early and 
even medieval Christianity as "baptizing" pagan forms. Rather, the leaders 
sought, with varying degress of success, to substitute Christian notions 
for pagan ones, Christmas for the feast of Sol, saints for gods, etc.
         5. Alga: yes there is a fierce bloodthirsty goddess among the 
semites: Anath, roughly like Diana or Artemis. (Maybe I misread you here.) 
Astarte/Ashteroth is more like Venus/Aphrodite -- though as always there is 
overlap.
         6. Greco-Roman gods and myths were not much different from 
Semitic/Canaanite ones, and really, Nordic ones were not much different 
either. I don't think sacrificial rituals were much different either. I 
don't think we have to debate much "which" of these myths Wolfe is using. 
He's probably combining all of them, with the Greco-Roman pantheon most 
prominent in the Whorl and something like Old Testament animal sacrifices 
most prominent in the local Chapter rituals. Remember, Wolfe is also 
playing with the transition from Old Testament to New, with Typhon's 
pantheon being like the Roman rulers of Palestine, and Chapter religion 
being like the religion of the Jews at the time of Christ (that is, the 
time of Silk).
         7. Wolfe did use Qabbalah some in New Sun: Yesodh and Briahh; 
though there he merely picked up some words to use in connection with an 
essentially "Catholic" universe. Given that gnosticism was not much 
different from either philosophy or earlier polytheism, but was a kind of 
new "late and decayed-pessimistic" version of both, it is no surprise that 
what Silk is growing out of has resemblances to all three (Marcus Aurelius 
in the Chrasmological writings, a pantheon of gods, a gnostic view of 
reality, etc.).
         8. The first time I read the New Sun, I thought Wolfe had just set 
up a Gnostic universe and was playing with it. Not so, he says. And to some 
extent, I think the Long Sun was a way of making that clear. If I might put 
words in his mouth, I would suggest that he is saying that some kind of 
gnostic/polytheistic understanding of the universe is what everybody 
naturally thinks until or unless they come to a Christian "creational" view 
of the universe; and that the psychological process of moving from the 
former to the latter does not happen overnight, but takes time. Hence, a 
gnostic/polytheistic world is "real" to people who have not been 
"enlightened" like Silk. But Silk's "enlightenment" does not mean he is 
moving "up" a gnostic hierarchy into transcendence, but that he is moving 
"out" of a gnostic view of reality altogether, and can now see these "gods" 
for what they really are: mere creatures, even if powerful ones. To a 
lesser extent, and much less clearly, Severian is moving in the same 
direction.
         9. Finally, since this came up, the Calvinistic doctrine of 
predestination (speaking as a Calvinistic theologian) is not much different 
from Augustine's and Aquinas's. Whoever described the "two eye" perspective 
-- from within time and from outside of time -- pretty well described it. 
(Sorry, I can't remember who wrote what.) On all sides, the doctrine is 
regarded as a "mystery," since in order to "understand" it, you would have 
to be God Himself, and folks, we aren't God and we're never gonna be. So we 
leave it as a mystery. Somehow we are free and our actions do count, and 
yet God as Creator of time and of all "events" in time, "foreordained" it 
all. The Calvinistic confessions of faith state that this is a matter that 
should be handled very gingerly and carefully, since to try to think about 
it very much is to fall into the sin of playing god. Anyway, Wolfe is a 
conventional Thomist most of the time, so I imagine he would agree with 
this. The debates between Catholics and Protestants really lie in other areas.

         I don't know if all this helps the discussion, but I hope it helps 
a bit.

Patera Nutria

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:47:57 +0000

Boethius, AD 400, IIRC

    hartshorn

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Jordan" <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
> (Sorry, I can't remember who wrote what.)

--

---

From: Josh Geller <dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 17:16:23 +0000

> Greek or Buddhist,

These are the only two kinds of philosophy?

>                   held that the "world" is corrupt in some essential
> way,

The more I think about this, the less I am satisfied with it, and the less
I think it is true, even if you limit it to Greek philosophy (what about
Lucretius? what about Epicurus?) and Buddhist philosophy (what about
Theravada? what about dhyana/Ch'an/Zen?).

What about all of these religious philosophers? They aren't really
philosophers?

> contemplating his way out of the "cave."

This is not at all consonant with my understanding of the Cave. Even after
you've been outside of the Cave, you still have to go back inside and live
there.

>                                        Gnosticism popularized this

Sure.

> its central doctrine of physical resurrection, is very "this-worldly,"

So does Plato.

Else why is he so concerned about politics?

> preaching redemption and activistic good works, not escape into contemplation.

There's one big difference between the Jewish and the Christian way of
looking at things. Judaism says, do the right thing because it is the
right thing to do. Christianity doesn't really say do the right thing so
that you will go to Heaven: salvation is a gift of grace, not the result
of works. I guess when you really look at it a certain way Christianity
does say the same thing as Judaism, if works are really inessential to
salvation. Still, it is amazing how many people have the impression that
people who do good things "go to Heaven" and people who do bad things "go
to Hell".

I have to say that I think that this whole focus on Gnosticism in the Book
Of The Long Sun is sort of a distraction from the really more interesting
things that Gene Wolfe is doing with these books.

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 19:04:04 +0000

>things that Gene Wolfe is doing with these books.

         I tend to agree. So I'll refrain from commenting on the rest of 
your misgivings. They boil down mainly to detail questions arising from my 
too-cursury post's infelicities. And there's no great merit in getting into 
all that here.

Nutria

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:22:52 +0000

Nutria,

It's good to hear your comments, and to the very large extent
that we seem to be in agreement I take this as a point in 
favor of what I've been saying -- not merely because you are,
as always, astute, but because you are this list's other
vocally professing Christian; I think that our agreement
suggests that what we are seeing may well be close to what
Wolfe, also a vocally professing Christian, intends, in that
we're coming from a similar world view to his.

>          1. Gnosticism is just "philosophy + myth." 
> Philosophy, whether Greek or Buddhist, held that the
> "world" is corrupt in some essential way, and that the
> wise man "escapes" from the world through contemplation, 
> contemplating his way out of the "cave." Gnosticism
> popularized this notion, adding myths, and various
> ritual and esoteric ways of escape (though esotericism
> is all over Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, if you 
> read them aright). 

Pythagoras and Plato, certainly; I'm not as sure about
Aristotle, who leaned almost to empiricism at times, or
at least this is the impression I get from my limited
reading of his work (lecture notes, whatever you want
to call it). 

But the point that this kind of esotericism is deeply
present in Gk philosophy is quite true ... Socrates, if
I am not mistaken, was an initiate of the Mysteries; and
all the Gk philosphers seem clear that some people are
fit for _sophia_ while the many are not ... an interesting
contrast with the Hebrew Wisdom tradition, which arises
from the Middle-eastern wisdom literature. 

The latter was intended to educate court scribes and 
officials; this remains clear in especially the earlier 
Wisdom books of the Hebrew canon, like Proverbs, which 
have signficicant hunks of advice about how to behave 
around kings. But even in the earlier books, it's clear 
that "wisdom" is something offered to the common 
Israelite, and which should be sought by everyone ... 
while plainly stating that there are many individuals 
(generally referred to as "the fool") who will not.

The other unique aspect of the Hebrew wisdom books,
vis-a-vis Gk philosophy and Middle-easter wisdom
literature, is its reliance on relationship with God
-- "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" is one
typical expression of this.

> The prophets of Israel preached against all escape,
> and called the people to involve themselves with the
> plight of the poor, the oppressed, etc.; 

The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (which is
mostly what we would call the wisdom literature) are
quite univocal about this; it is the duty of those
with enough to concern themselves with the plight of
those who do not.

(An interesting take on this, dragging us back momentarily
to contemporary fantasy literature and thus to something
vaguely similar to the ostensive topic of this list, is 
Tolkien's "Leaf by Niggle," about a very Tolkien-like artist 
who wants nothing but to complete his Great Painting and is 
constantly bothered by his duty to his neighbors. Which, 
however grudgingly, he does, which ends up being the 
salvation of both himself and his painting. Grotesque 
summary, but...) 

And actually reaching out to the list topic: Silk and
the Narrator continually harp on the plight of the poor
of first Viron, and then Blue. One sideline interpretation
of one aspect of the Short books would be to consider
the inhumi as a divinely-sent scourge, whose menace would
be reduced to nuisance if the people would live according
to the Law (loving one's neighbors, taking care of society's
poor). I do not go so far as to say "Wolfe intended this,"
but it wouldn't _surprise_ me.

> and Jesus and the (best) of the Church follows this. 
> Christianity, with its sacraments of water, oil, bread, 
> and wine, and with its central doctrine of physical
> resurrection, is very "this-worldly," preaching redemption
> and activistic good works, not escape into contemplation.

Absolutely ... even Catholicism, with all its cloistered
and contemplative orders, is tremendously insistent on the
physical aspects of religion, which is often referred to as
"incarnationalism." The RCC insists on the importance of
both the physical substance of the Eucharistic Host, and the 
physical requirements of the poor. Indeed, I (as a Catholic) 
believe that it is only by that insistence that the 
contempative orders are kept from becoming essentially 
Manicheeistic in their detachment from "worldly things" --
that, perhaps, is was necessary when the majority of 
Protestant churches shucked off the concept of 
transubstantiation, it was necessary for them to shuck off 
also the monastic orders ... and vice versa. (I do not here
intend to argue for one church over another.)

> 3. Typhon is, IMO, much like the Demiurge, in that 
> he forms his Whorl out of preexisting matter. Pas
> rules this Whorl, so he is not a "demiurge" but
> merely a "god."

Okay, this is a distinction I had failed to make ...
somehow, I have this tendency to think of Typhon and
Pas as one entity. My bad. With this distinction, the
analogy/allegory becomes much clearer ...

> But the Outsider, is just that: outside of it all.
> He is the Creator, not a Prime Mover, and the cosmos 
> is not made out of his substance. He is outside of
> it, not the highest part of it.

Part of the issue, of course, is that the Outsider is 
Outside because the gods of the Whorl deliberately
shut him out -- tried to erase all memory of him when
they reprogrammed the original Cargo. But memory of the
"long sun Whorl" religion, in trace form, remained, and
became part of the Writings, in the few references to
the Outsider ... This implies, incidentally, that the 
Writings were not presented to the people of Viron 
already-written by Scylla or some other god, but were 
set down by them in the early days ... so that they are, 
in a way, roughly analogous to one Christian model of 
the Old Testament: "a collection of the written records 
of one people's experiences of God..." the "Book of Silk"
taking, presumably, a role similar to that of the NT,
something I claimed long ago in my comments that the
search for the "facts" behind the BoS is roughly analgous
to that of Christians trying to uncover the "facts" of 
the "historical" Jesus by looking at accounts written
years later by people who may or may not have been 
present at the events. (Luke as much as confesses that
he was not; John claims that he was. Matthew and Mark
make no direct statements on the subject.)

> 4. The Outsider as a minor god in Typhon's pantheon 
> is a play on the "Unknown God" of Acts chapter 17. 

D'oh! I can't believe I missed that.

> ... Hence, for Wolfe, as for orthodox Christianity, pagan
> religions are a mixture of awareness of the truth of an 
> Outside Creator mingled and corrupted by a "scale of being" 
> or "gnostic" or "emanation-hierarchical" view of reality.
> Thus, Chapter religion has some of both in it. But what is
> happening is not a "baptizing" of prior paganism, but an
> extrication from it. It is a mistake to read early and 
> even medieval Christianity as "baptizing" pagan forms. 

I think this is too sweeping a statement ... or, perhaps, 
one that depends on a specific interpretation of "baptizing," 
different from what many writers mean when they say that,
e.g., Christmas "baptises" the Saturnalia. It does not, in 
the sense that it does not simply take the Saturnalia and
substitute Christian names and concepts and otherwise keep 
the Saturnalia intact. It does, in the sense that baptism 
is in part an act of exoricism, in which the spirit of sin
is driven from the baptised person, to be replaced in their
heart by the Holy Spirit of God. In other words, if "baptism"
is perceived (as, for example, Paul perceives it) as nothing 
less than a complete transformation -- a rebirth, a new 
creation -- then that is precisely what happens to the
Saturnalia in the institution of the Feast of the Nativity.

> 6. Greco-Roman gods and myths were not much different 
> from Semitic/Canaanite ones, and really, Nordic ones 
> were not much different either. 

There is _so_ much "point of view" to be taken into account
here ... if you take the point of view of someone like Graves
or Campbell, you find all manner of similarity, and uncover
the Deep Psychic Structures of "all" religions. If you take
the point of view of someone like Lewis, you perceive that
they are quite different in orientation -- that the Nordic
myths, for example, are deeply pessimistic in a way that
neither the Greek nor the Middle-eastern myths are. According
to the Norse myths, the monsters will win in the end, and
heroism is simply a matter of dying well. Middle-eastern
myth believed that the world was created well but became
damaged or flawed in some ur-event; most Middle-eastern
religious ritual was aimed at bringing back the prelapsarian
time, or at least making the present more like it. (Israelite 
religion, as was usual for Israel, took up this theme and 
transformed it into something quite different -- yes, the 
world had Fallen, but no amount of ritual was going to undo 
that; you had to live in the world as it was. Religion was
not aimed at bringing back the golden past but at present
blessings.) I don't really see _any_ of these attitudes in
"classical" myth.

> I don't think sacrificial rituals were much different 
> either. 

Again, the purpose seems to have a lot to do with it ...
did the Greeks use sacrifice to fortell the future? Their
oracular methodologies seemed to involve counting birds or 
listening to stoned/crazy/inspired (pick and choose) women 
in a cave. Scrying by entrails of a sacrificial victim is
very Middle-eastern.

> I don't think we have to debate much "which" of these
> myths Wolfe is using. 

While I'm guilty of this, I suppose I agree.

> 7. Wolfe did use Qabbalah some in New Sun: Yesodh and
> Briahh; though there he merely picked up some words to
> use in connection with an essentially "Catholic" universe.

Well, there's a bit more to it than that, but you're
essentially right ... NS literalizes Kabbalistic concepts
in the context of a universe in which Catholic Christianity
is true. What I've been arguing is that NS does the same 
for Gnosticism, though at much greater length, and in a way
more central to the concerns of the book than Kabbalism is
to NS.

> If I might put words in his mouth, I would suggest that he
> is saying that some kind of gnostic/polytheistic
> understanding of the universe is what everybody naturally
> thinks until or unless they come to a Christian "creational"
> view of the universe; and that the psychological process of
> moving from the former to the latter does not happen overnight,
> but takes time. 

Well said. 

> But Silk's "enlightenment" does not mean he is moving
> "up" a gnostic hierarchy into transcendence, but that 
> he is moving "out" of a gnostic view of reality altogether,
> and can now see these "gods" for what they really are: mere
> creatures, even if powerful ones. 

Yes/no: Silk's "enlightenment" is (I think) very much a
gnosis, but one could make the same claim for the calls
of Abram and Moses. 

> predestination (speaking as a Calvinistic theologian) is not 
> much different from Augustine's and Aquinas's. Whoever
> described the "two eye" perspective -- from within time and
> from outside of time -- pretty well described it. 

'twas I. Thank you. (I tend to think that a _lot_ of
theological debates can be dissolved by remembering that
God is infinite and eternal, and broadening the context
of discussion accordingly ...)

> The Calvinistic confessions of faith state that this is 
> a matter that should be handled very gingerly and carefully,
> since to try to think about it very much is to fall into the
> sin of playing god. 

Whereas the Catholic church would say that theology is 
"faith seeking understanding" -- as long as we avoid the 
pride of thinking that we have ever plumbed the depths, that 
we have actually comprehended God's mind, the attempt to 
understand what we can is a worthy one.

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:35:42 +0000

Josh wrote:

> There's one big difference between the Jewish and the 
> Christian way of looking at things. Judaism says, do the 
> right thing because it is the right thing to do. 

Actually, a close reading of the Hebrew scriptures shows
that from end to end, Law, Prophets, and Writings ("TaNaK")
promise blessings for "doing the right thing," from caring
for the widows-and-orphans to maintining cultic purity, and 
curses for, well, not doing the right thing. The idea of 
Heaven-and-Hell do not enter into it (well, maybe a little, 
very late, in that the very latest Writings seem to suggest
a belief that God has care and concern for the dead in 
Sheol); the blessings are land, prosperity, and descendents, 
while the curses are poverty, infertility, and death. 

Interestingly, the religion of the Chapter is much more
concerned with the afterlife than Temple Judaism ever was
-- Judaism, unlike almost all its neighbors, seems to have
been almost unconcerned with the afterlife; Greeks,
Egyptians, and most Middle-eastern religions all had plenty
to say on the subject. 

> Christianity doesn't really say do the right thing so that
> you will go to Heaven: salvation is a gift of grace, not
> the result of works. 

Yes/no: this is another of those distinctions that dissolves
when the context is broadened. Faith, which is a gift ("gift
of grace" is redundant ... look it up), is the one and only
way of salvation. But "faith" is actually a very ill-defined
term, and some of the NT writers make it clear that "faith"
does not exist without works, that a real faith produces 
works in the faithful. One modern writer (alas, I have lost
her name) summed it up in the aphorism: "We are saved by
faith alone, but the faith by which we are saved is never
alone."

Wolfe, I think, would agree; Silk's enlightenment leads to
concrete actions, even if some of them are the result of
his misunderstanding what the God wants from him.

> I have to say that I think that this whole focus on 
> Gnosticism in the Book Of The Long Sun is sort of a 
> distraction from the really more interesting things that Gene 
> Wolfe is doing with these books.

I don't know about them being more interesting, but they
are interesting indeed and there are many, many more of 
them.

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:43:43 +0000

>we're coming from a similar world view to his.

Thanks. Just a couple of quickies.

>reading of his work (lecture notes, whatever you want

         To be sure. But I dimly recall from college days that Aristotle 
replied to a letter from one of his former students, who expressed concern, 
that none of the really deep and esoteric stuff had been put down in his 
lecture notes. All that good stuff had been preserved for the inner circle. 
But I'm going from ancient memory here.

>is in part an act of exoricism,

         Okay. I was not thinking in that particular sense, but in the 
popular and milder view of what "baptizing something" means. Point granted.

>neither the Greek nor the Middle-eastern myths are.

         Right. My bad. Should have left the Nordics out of it.

Thanks.

Nutria

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:38:48 +0000

> Nutria,
...
> analogy/allegory becomes much clearer ...

So when they say "Pas made the whorl", they mean Typhon?
> the Outsider ...

Is there textual evidence that that's the origin of the Outsider?

...
> heroism is simply a matter of dying well.

That's not unknown in the Greek myths, though they don't have such a
statement about the fate of the world (as far as I know).  There are
similarities that they don't share with "all religions": both the Greek
and Norse pantheons are ruled by father gods, and both have somewhat
shadowy earlier gods (Titans and Vanir).  And there are differences.  It
depends on what's important to you.

> Middle-eastern

I don't see a belief in Judaism that the world has fallen.  Adam and Eve
were punished, partly by being expelled from Paradise, but the world
wasn't changed.  (Their descendants didn't become sinful either.)  And in
the only other Middle Eastern myth I know, that of Gilgamesh, Paradise
still exists and is reachable by ship.
...

> > If I might put words in his
[Wolfe's]
> > mouth, I would suggest that he

I hope he doesn't believe that!  Polytheistic, yes, but not gnostic.  If
we can guess what everyone "naturally" thinks, it would be animism.  The
animistic religions I have "a little learning" about, mostly those of the
Navajo and Tewa, are far more this-world oriented than any kind of
Christianity, and in this sense more or less the opposite of (most?)
Gnosticism.
...

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

--

---

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:50:44 +0000

> Christianity, and in this sense more or less the opposite of (most?)

(This is so parenthetical that I'm putting it in parens, but two more that
many know something about (there are hundreds of small ones, mostly tribal)
are Rome before they adopted "Greek ways" in their drive to world
dominance--but they always kept their household "lares and penates," which
Latro dimly recalls--and Japanese Shinto, which was actively promoted in the
20th century as a way of keeping citizens loyal to the Emperor instead of
some important--or imported--god. I would go along with that "this-world"
guess, though I also think it is "natural" to be awed by the heavens and to
have some "other-world" feeling that way.)

Gnostic feeling, however, is not polytheistic. The Alien God is definitely
single; the archons stand in for angels, the Demiurge is specifically
described as an abortion, or mistake, and certainly not to be worshiped;
Sophia is not worshiped. What it has in common with other monotheistic
religions is the "knowledge" of the Way, the Truth and the Life and that
those who believe [in this] shall be saved. Tough on the rest of you. This
is not the religion of the Whorls, which is based on Hellenism. The
Neighbors\inhumi dichotomy in, I think, specifically taken from early
syncretic Christianity. The notion that Wolfe has borrowed, quite
successfully, from Gnosticism is that of the Demiurge (and I don't know why
some of you are making a Typhon/Pas split--Wolfe doesn't in his interviews).

(Back in parens: Gnosticism is not monolithic, of course. The Mandaean
version had a wonderful space-opera mythology that John Crowley paid tribute
to in his invented comic-strip, "Little Enosh: Lost Among the Worlds.")

-alga

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:33:36 +0000

>have some "other-world" feeling that way.)

         What you tend to find in all "pagan" religions is something like this:

a. Nature gods of streams, woods, etc. Little local gods. Totem tribal spirits.
b. Often these are linked with ancestors, who have become spirits somehow. 
Household gods. Lares and Penates. Totem poles and masks.
c. Sky gods, associated with government. The big gods. And medium gods 
associated with particular cities. Vesta in Rome.
d. Some kind of "god behind the gods" with whom we have no contact. (Though 
there are those who question how much the "great spirit" really exists for 
"pagan" people.)

         In any culture, it becomes a matter of emphasis. Small tribes go 
mostly with local gods and ancestors. Large citified or imperial cultures 
move more into sky/government gods -- their horizon has been enlarged. But 
even the things in the sky are mostly animal constellations, though they 
get linked up with more humaniform gods "behind" them.
         So, I agree that the Romans were influenced by the Greek pantheon, 
but I think it would not be completely correct to say that they did not 
have something pretty similar before they began to move out into the world.

Parenthetically yours,

Nutria

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:39:30 +0000

>still exists and is reachable by ship.

The world is not fallen in the sense of being sinful, but is it "under a 
curse for the sake of humanity" so that it does not cooperate with sinful 
humanity. Hence, only as humanity shapes up will the world return toward 
paradise. The issue in Middle Eastern religion can from this perspective be 
boiled down to this: Does the world get renewed as a result of bargaining 
with various gods, and/or as a result of doing rituals right, and/or as a 
result of searching for paradise; OR does the world get renewed as a result 
of the spiritual/moral renewal of humanity (the Jewish/Christian answer)?
         I would suggest that as time went along, and thought matured, the 
former answer devolved into gnosticism: the world is cursed in itself, and 
thus a bad place. The early Church had to answer that the world is good in 
itself, and that "only man is vile." A "new earth" is coming, but only when 
humanity is redeemed and resurrected.

FWIW

Nutria

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 02:41:05 +0000

on 11/4/02 7:50 PM, Alice K. Turner at aturner6 at nyc.rr.com wrote:

> (and I don't know why

Whether or not he makes it in his interviews, it is clearly present in the
books.  Typhon is the ruler of Urth who built the Whorl; Pas is a copy of
Typhon's personality that was downloaded into a computer.  One could say
that Pas is Typhon in the sense that Silk-in-Mainframe is Silk; but the
entity that ordered the Whorl to be built was killed by Severian on Urth.

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 02:41:07 +0000

on 11/1/02 10:24 AM, James Wynn at crushtv at HotPOP.com wrote:

> in LS 2).

I'd forgotten this; which means that the analogy between Pas and the
Demiurge, and the case for a gnostic influence on the Long Sun books, are
even weaker than I thought.  I see no reason not to regard the "cosmology"
of the Long Sun as a product of Wolfe's views on the existence of pagan
"gods" combined with the generation-starship trope, with any resemblance to
Gnosticism being accidental.

--Adam

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 19:59:28 +0000

--- James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net> wrote:
...

> d. Some kind of "god behind the gods" with whom we have no contact.

I think "all 'pagan' religions" is an exaggeration.  Probably
mostly civilized cultures have "big gods" associated with government.

> (Though 

I've talked with one Native American woman who was very strongly
against the ideas of one God and one Truth, but I don't know whether
that opposition was part of her tribe's traditions or more a
response to the damage done to them by monotheists.

> mostly with local gods and ancestors.

I agree, but I might say "only" rather than "mostly".

> Large citified or imperial cultures 
> move more into sky/government gods -- their horizon has been enlarged.

And subjugation, whether of foreigners or their own peasants, becomes
more important to them.
...

Jerry Friedman

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 23:36:17 +0000

on 11/4/02 12:22 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes at ddanehy at siebel.com wrote:

> set down by them in the early days ...

I see some problems with this:

1) Did Typhon, then, fail to provide scriptures for his invented religion?
If so, why?  If not, what happened to them?

2) Iirc, the Writings were a melange of quotes from a variety of sources;
James Jordan mentioned "Marcus Aurelius in the Chrasmological writings" in
another post.  I could see Wolfe positing that traces of the true religion
survived all efforts by Typhon to erase it; that he would have posited the
same thing for Marcus Aurelius seems less likely.

3) Assuming that you are correct about the Writings' origin, if Pas et al
did not want people to worship or remember the Outsider, why didn't they
announce that the parts of the Writings mentioning the Outsider were
heretical and should be removed?

--Adam

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:55:56 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Stephanides [mailto:adamsteph at earthlink.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:36 PM
> To: urth at urth.net
> Subject: Re: (urth) Gnostic Wolfe
> 
> 
> became part of 
> > the Writings, in the few references to the Outsider ... 
> This implies, 
> > incidentally, that the Writings were not presented to the people of 
> > Viron already-written by Scylla or some other god, but were

> 1) Did Typhon, then, fail to provide scriptures for his 
> invented religion? If so, why?  If not, what happened to them?

If he had, you'd think there would have been just the one 
religion, instead of the "Vironese Faith," the Islam-like
faith of the -- oh, darn, I'm blanking on the city's name 
-- the Hindu-ish worship of Gaon, etc. Or are you suggesting
that he provided a different religion for each and every 
city? I mean, sure, it's possible that he might have done
so, but it doesn't seem like the way a megalomaniac does
things.

OTOH, he does seem to have individualized the cities themselves
somewhat.

I'm imagining the reprogrammed Cargo waking up on the
_Whorl_, finding the Windows in whatever sort of temples
or manteions or whatever their city has, and receiving 
The Revelation Of Pas in which he sets forth his, well,
standing orders. Nobody writes them down right away, and
the religion in each city tends to fall into the old patterns
of its people, mingled with random badly-erased memories, 
etc., and eventually written down in the Writings and 
whatever each of the other cities write it down in.

> 2) Iirc, the Writings were a melange of quotes from a variety 
> of sources; James Jordan mentioned "Marcus Aurelius in the 
> Chrasmological writings" in another post.  I could see Wolfe 
> positing that traces of the true religion survived all 
> efforts by Typhon to erase it; that he would have posited the 

Yes, at least some of the quotes we have from the Writings
are indeed from various sources. (I'm pretty sure I recall
something from Isaiah, too.) But I'm not sure that we should
read all that much into it -- there are at least two good
reasons for it to be the way it is:

A) It is (or contains) remembered scraps -- as you say, a 
   melange -- of stuff that didn't get wiped properly; or,
B) Why should Wolfe, who doesn't bother to make up new words,
   write a new Word when there's lots of good stuff lying
   around in public domain that will sound ancient and holy?

> 3) Assuming that you are correct about the Writings' origin, 
> if Pas et al did not want people to worship or remember the 
> Outsider, why didn't they announce that the parts of the 
> Writings mentioning the Outsider were heretical and should
> be removed?

I'll answer that question with two questions:

Why assume that he cares? The purpose _from Pas's point of
view_ wasn't to shut out the One True God; he doesn't believe
in any One True God. His purpose was to wipe out the memories 
of all other religions (which are equal in his eyes, in that
they don't serve his puropse) so _he_ can be God. That wiping
out works imperfectly, and results in all sorts of accretions 
to his "state religion," but the Outsider is -- to him -- 
just one more "minor god." 

Why in the _Whorl_ do you imagine that Pas has ever bothered
to _read_ the Chrasmological Writings -- I rather doubt he
has, I rather doubt he _cares_. He's getting worship and
obedience (right up to the point where Echidna and the sprats
off him); he's happy as a clam.

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:40:15 +0000

>If so, why?  If not, what happened to them?

I can't see that the religious environment set up to support Pas and his
familly as gods of the Whorl could have worked in any fashion unless Pas
did indeed provide the founding scripture.

Did the original inhbaitants not have their memories adjusted to make it
appear as if the Whorl were their proper home?  To have memory of a
religion without its support structure - scripture - would have left a
hole very damaging to that preparation.

>same thing for Marcus Aurelius seems less likely.

Religious writings that evolve retain traces of their precursors, often
whole tranches verbatim.  The same is generally true of attempts to create
new things - viz almost any of the extant cults around the world.  It
seems to me that Pas/Typhon was constructing a tool for control as a
pragmatic exercise not one of convistion.  He, or those he set to the
task, would be more likely than not to crib what existed where it seemed
to serve the purpose.  That traces of other things remained to be found
should be no surprise.

>heretical and should be removed?

I don't find it likely that Typhon believed in deity as the writings
present it.  He'd know of the galactic powers and possibly those that
stand above them but would he give credence to some godhead such as the
Outsider when in Typhon's world (personally and politically) I doubt he
would admit to there being any power stronger than he.

Thus there would be no motive to remove possible references while
prepareing the writings and once the Whorl was running to have declared
part of the sacred writings heretical would have allowed the entry of
doubt, the possibility that other parts might not be as sacred or as
necessary as the worshipers were supposed to believe.  Such a move could
potentially have been extremely damaging to what might perhaps be the gods
of Manframe's most powerful tool of social control.

Matthew

--